As quite a few other posters have referred to the interview by Trevor McDonald of Sion Jenkins and are hanging on to its significance, I have watched the body language analysis given by Craig james Baxter:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qco6x94qkNQ&t=10s
and have put together my own thoughts on the matter below. For each comment I put the time in the video that I am referring to.
1:00 "We would never pause and think". Rubbish. Plenty of reasons why someone would pause and think before answering a question. From drawing a breath to collecting our thoughts. Particularly in this instance Sion is taking his mind back to a girl he raised himself for several years, loved dearly and then cradled in his arms as she died. Not to mention that he went on to be accused of her murder.
1:30 Referring to speech errors in particular as well as stammers is a recurring comment throughout this video. How well do we know Sion as a speaker? Speech errors/ stammers are not necessarily indicative of guilt.
2:36 Craig states this is a non-answer. But Sion clearly does give an answer to the interviewer question of him being found a suspect. I.e. he was shocked that anyone would consider him capable of killing Billie-Joe. This is not implying or skirting round the issue.
3:48 False start. Craig is claiming he is recalling what he told the police. As this interview is now 10 years after the event, Sion has had 10 years of retelling this tale. So if it is made up, it is well rehearsed. So he wouldn't have needed to think about it. More likely in this instance is that he is gathering his thoughts for the interview.
4:36 "Well yes...much was made of that" Craig claims he is struggling when asked about the white spirit and stammers. Maybe so, but that doesn't imply guilt. Trevor McDonald stammers slightly too when he is asking the question. Does that mean he is hiding something as well? What it is that Sion is having to explain is why they had gone on the trip to the DIY store when they had one in the cupboard already. He has gone over this many times in the past with previous police interviews and court cases. He emphasises the point that the bottle has been languishing at the back of the cupboard for three years. Craig then goes on to state that the very mention of the number three is an indication of lying. This is a statement made by Mark McClish who is another author on lying and deception. If there were a pattern of this in Sion's statement, this may be a point. But for a one off statement, this is more like clutching at straws. He may not have known it was there at the time of the murder, but after the event it was realised that it dated back to some previous DIY 3 years earlier. Hence when answering Trevor's question he stated it was three years old.
7:15 The unusual route to the store is clearly explained in his book, if not explained as well in the interview. He emphasises the point because he has gone over this time and time again in previous interviews. He is not showing flashes of anger, this is more exasperation of a point he has had to repeat many times over the past 10 years. Craig also claims he forgets what he is going for. No he doesn't. This is more of a pause while he considers using a pronoun 'it' or the noun 'white spirit'. He is not going to forget having repeatedly made this point over 10 years.
10:15 Trevor takes him to the point where Sion realises he has no money, "You realised you had no money.... So it was a pretty fruitless exercise anyway", to which Sion agrees it was. Craig points out the shrug. So what?
10:40 Yes he does refer to the police now, because he has already talked about what actually happened. That is because he is referring to their deduction that the trip to Do it All is all just a ruse. He and Trevor have already raised the point that he has arrived at the store with no money. So rather than ignore the police's deduction, he is raising it in order to repudiate it.
11:04 Craig now states this point is key as Sion is potentially telling us how he (or someone) could do it and get away with murder. Craig's inference is that Sion is explaining how he has created a time window to act as alibi for someone else to have carried out the murder. But what Sion is doing is illustrating how ludicrous this explanation is and does not hold up at all. Sion points out that if he has gone to create a time window, then he would deliberately go into the store and set about wasting as much time as possible. Sion is not distancing himself from what he did. He is sticking to his actions by pointing how an actual murderer would have behaved. What Craig could easily have taken as an indicator of Sion's innocence, he tries to re-interpret as an indication of guilt.
12:08 He stutters because at a crucial point in the case, he cannot state how long they were away for. On the day, it was a very inconsequential journey to Do it All, so no-one was checking their watch or timing movements. As he points out, it would have depending on how fast he drove and traffic. It is slightly odd that he actually says "how fast or slowly one drives", rather than keeping it first person. But then he is keeping the point generic. How long it takes to complete a journey depends on how fast/slow anyone drives.
12:32 Trevor asks Sion about the version of events where a killer breaks into their garden, kills Billie-Joe and disappears. In replying to this question, Sion stammers as he is airing his confusion and incredulity on this point as he points out that he has simply given his statements that they returned from the trip and Billie-joe. The police had asked Sion who killed Billie and could only repeat to them that he didn't know. It is not his job to tell them who the murderer is. That's their responsibility.
13:15 Craig now claims that he has worked out who the killer is from the facial expression of the young actress playing one of the daughters in the re-enactment. Is this some kind of sick joke? Well in doing so, to my mind Craig loses any scrap of credibility that he may have started with.
Disclaimer: The opinions I express are strictly my own. Sion was found not guilty in a court of law. This is something he omitted from the first video. Clearly he wants to avoid appearing libelous.
1:50 Sion is talking about the events immediately after the murder, when he is being interviewed straight away. This was an extremely traumatic time from him to recall, so no wonder his speech stumbles around these points and his lips go dry.
3:27 Sion compares his treatment with the support the police officers received. The officers are given PTSD support, whereas any unusual behaviour Sion's part is considered an indication of guilt. They're not interested in cases of shock. Craig wonders why he was given different treatment to what the police received, 'he would have loved to have been present during the interrogation'. So it wasn't just down to incompetence on the part of the police then? Sion covers this point very well in his book. he points out that the police are able to change their statements at will, adding points as they recall them several days later without anyone batting an eye. But when Sion adds details as they come back to him, that is taken as an indication of his guilt.
4:36 Craig dismisses the falsified cv and admits to having done so himself.
8:03 His speech pattern changes here as he attempting to emphasise a very important point about the original forensic report. It is more as though he is referring to a document rather than recalling events. Yes, he is trying to convince of something: that the report the police based their case on was only preliminary and had stated that there may well have been other explanations.
9:29 Craig states that Sion's answer to Trevor's question about Lois' allegations of marital abuse is very significant. Craig highlights an asymmetrical smile which he suggests contempt. Having read Sion's book (which from reading comments on this forum, it appears not many others have done) it is quite understandable how painful this must be for his wife of many years to have come out with such vile allegations against him. I have said it before in other posts and I shall say it again: I do not believe a word of Lois' allegations for the following reasons:
1. Why does no-one else corroborate any of them? Not even any of their numerous live in nannies?
2. Why did she not either leave Sion earlier or report them if they were nearly as bad as she claims? Particularly as Lois was a social worker herself.
3. Why was it at her suggestion that they brought in a foster daughter?
4. Why did social services not notice anything wrong during any of their regular visits to the house to see Billie?
Craig wonders why Sion would show contempt here. He even says, "It's beyond me". Well there are two ways of looking at this point. Either Craig has misinterpreted this point and Sion is not showing contempt, but another emotion at this question. Or alternatively he is feeling contempt. Contempt for an ex wife who swallowed hook, line and sinker the 'feed it to mum' and then went on to pervert the course of justice by gagging their own daughters, effectively altering their statements and then making false allegations about her ex husband.
11:15 Contempt(?) for these false allegations as before.
11:34 When explaining the perforated eardrum, Sion has to recall events from many years previously and is back to his previous speech pattern. If you read Sion's book, he explains that it was him that incurred the perforated eardrum, not Lois.
12:10 He uses the phrase "I think one has to look at", to indicate that anyone has to look at the context. Not just referring to himself. Unless I am very much mistaken here, this is only the second time he uses the term 'one' and in both cases he is keeping the point generic, referring to anyone. Not just himself.
13:35 He does make a false start when answering Trevor's question about never hitting his wife. Maybe he is trawling back in his memory for any incident at all that could be used against Sion to substantiate her claims. No matter how slight. Regardless, I stand by my previous points about none of these allegations being corroborated by anyone prior to the murder. Or more likely just as he struggles to process the very idea that he could have killed Billie-Jo, he is unable to comprehend the allegation that he was a violent wife beater. After all, this was a man who had a glowing career in academia and was on the verge of being promoted to headmaster. This is not the career path of someone with a violent unstable temperament.
14:15 When answering Trevor's question about who killed Billie, Sion states again that he doesn't know. Craig says that there is a speech error here. He concentrates on one little "Err". That really is scraping the bottom of the barrel to consider so much emphasis on an err.
Skipped over in Craig's analysis video is the statement from Esther and Mya "The comments our father made where he denied using corporal punishment against us are not true." This is a bit of a development. However I consider it interesting that it only came from the two younger daughters and not all of them. In addition to which, I would have been surprised if he had managed to raise four (then five) daughters without having to resort to smacking them when naughty. But the key point is was it excessive or unwarranted? I point out once again that the social services had the whole family under very close scrutiny while they fostered Billie-Jo. In addition to which, Lois was a social worker herself.
1. Body language is an inexact science which leaves everything open to interpretation. When determining guilt in a suspect, it is probably about as accurate as phrenology.
2. Craig James Baxter claims to be an expert in the field. He has a website, a facebook page and published some books. Here are some reviews: https://www.amazon.com/Unmasked-Revealing-Fascinating-World-Language/product-reviews/1484120434/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews&showViewpoints=0&pageNumber=1
Many of the reviews are not exactly glowing endorsements.
3. Has this analysis been peer reviewed? I doubt it.
4. If one thing is obvious it is that Craig has posted this review as a source of self promotion. He is not interested in establishing whether Sion is guilty or innocent.
5. He starts this video clearly with one opinion already in place which he goes on to substantiate. He does not start with an open mind in order to consider the evidence before him. Instead he looks for wherever he can substantiate his pre-conceived ideas.